Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Fact

The petitioner, a partnership firm ("the Firm"), initially was running a bar and restaurant in a rented building. In December 2013, the Revenue Department wanted to acquire the building as a part of its metro project. On 10.12.2013, the revenue authorities-according to the petitioner, without notice-seized the building and sealed it, assisted by the police and excise officials. As much stock had been left unused, the Firm represented to the revenue authorities to permit it to exhaust the stock and continue running the business until the authorities actually needed the building for the metro project.

2. The revenue authorities-to be specific, the District Collector-permitted the Firm to re-open the shop. It was with an express condition that the Firm should surrender the building when the authorities required it. On 22.12.2013, it reopened the shop. Later, as the revenue authorities did not insist on the Firm's closing the business, it applied to the Excise Department ("the Department") to have the licence renewed. And it got the licence renewed through Ext.P1, with effect from 01.04.2014. Soon thereafter, on 10.04.2014, the revenue authorities on